Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

@sprwn is relying on what the @SEC_News said about me in response to #XRPHolders motion to intervene. I quoted an old adage in my reply brief:

“When You Resort to Attacking the Messenger and not the Message, You Have Lost the Debate.”

Many people didn’t read the reply brief.

https://twitter.com/johnedeaton1/status/1406712319292456977

But considering @sprwn has used the SEC as his only source in his unprovoked attack of me, I will quote my response to the SEC’s attack so that it is in proper context for those that are unaware:

“The SEC has attempted to portray XRP Holders’ counsel as an unhinged conspiracy

theorist crusader unfairly targeting the SEC. Attorney Deaton’s criticism of the former leadership of the SEC is mostly based on the media’s reporting regarding troubling discoveries of conflicts of interests, self-dealings and personal gain regarding former Director of

Corporation and Finance William Hinman, who declared Ether as a non-security while being paid millions of dollars while at the SEC from his law firm (a member of the Ethereum Alliance); and, former Chairman Clayton, who declared Bitcoin and Ether as non-securities while directing

a suit, in essence, against its competitor, XRP, on his last [day] at the SEC, later accepting a job at a hedge fund that invested $1 billion in Bitcoin and Ether shortly before the lawsuit against Ripple and XRP. See Deaton Decl. Ex. A Media Criticism of SEC Leadership.

Regardless of whether there was wrong-doing, XRP Holders became outraged. Attorney Deaton explained that issues of sovereign and qualified immunity could result in the inability for any party to depose the prior SEC leadership. After witnessing XRP Holders’ disappointment and

feelings of injustice, Attorney Deaton attempted to provide a satirical humorous exaggerated mock cross examination of former Chairman Clayton, incorporating special effects and humorous scenes from the iconic lawyer movie, My Cousin Vinny.

For the SEC to use the above scenario

and imply or suggest that Attorney Deaton was promoting violence or drug use is sad and pathetic. It is a clear attempt to cast Attorney Deaton in the most unfavorable light, hoping that it will have a negative impact on the motion to intervene.”

Just so we are clear, the

alleged violence the SEC is referencing that I have promoted against its staff are as follows:
1) a tweet where I am using punching a “bully” (not an innocent) in the face as a metaphor of fighting back against tyranny and my motion to intervene is the “punch” in the face; and

2) a pretend exaggerated satirical mock cross examination of Jay Clayton using special effects and cut outs of a popular movie (see below 👇) where I jokingly say “if you say that again, I may have to slap the shit out of you.”

By the way, @sprwn and the #SEC for that matter, are you aware that YouTube has a policy against the promotion of violence and if you actually promote violence they will remove your content or slap a warning on your video?

YouTube has never taken any action related to my video.

Because to claim that I was actually promoting or inciting violence against members of the SEC, past or present, is utterly absurd and pathetic. Watch it for yourself.

After watching it, you might have a valid criticism that it’s not funny or entertaining, but to argue that I’m

promoting violence and drug use in this video is pure desperation.

Finally @sprwn, you might want to hesitate relying on the SEC as your source. Free legal advice: Maybe instead of defaming me (when I’m not even involved), you think about this:

What happens with Flare and the

Token if the SEC wins the case and today’s #XRP is declared a security?

If today’s #XRP is a security and the Spark token derives from #XRP, what’s that make the Spark token?